Well, according to the spokesman, "We do not recognize the baptism officially, neither the swedish nor the danish. Ths practise - to recieve somebody without a second baptism will be impossible for us, since homosexual relationships is a sin according to orthodox theology". (My translation since I couldn't find any english source)

I think the reason behind it is stupid, but I'm very glad they've opted for receiving Lutherans by baptism now. Surely if the promotion of sexual sin is an impediment to valid baptism, then so are obvious heresies like the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility? Just shows how legalistic and absurd the whole notion of "validity" actually is. Chrismation only is an act of economia, not an indicator of the sacramental "validity" of heterodox communions.

I think it has somethig to do with that thing about the Russian Church recognizing the baptism of some churches as long as they are trinitarian.

I didn't realise homosexuality was related in any way to Triadology, or that the Danes now included mention of it in their baptismal formula. It seems like an absurd reason to stop receving them by chrismation, but I'm glad since I don't think they should have done so to begin with.

Quote

Yeah, but what I want to know is whether or not this policy will be practiced by all the patriarchates or just the Russian Patriarchate.

Unless Moscow and Constantinople get together to discuss the matter, which seems unlikely, I think it will remain a local issue. I would be very happy if Constantinople follows suit, but I hope they will justify their change in policy on the basis of something more important.

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy. I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do.

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans. If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else? What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism. Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc. I see nothing wrong with the change.

Well, according to the spokesman, "We do not recognize the baptism officially, neither the swedish nor the danish. Ths practise - to recieve somebody without a second baptism will be impossible for us, since homosexual relationships is a sin according to orthodox theology". (My translation since I couldn't find any english source)

I follow western rules on this anyway, but the theological logic here is utterly lacking. I'm sure it might be gratifying to some cranky Danish converts who want a more thorough-going repudiation of their old faith, but there is no way I can draw a line between that kind of theological error and baptism. You would think that they had noticed a long time back that Lutherans still use the filioque.

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy. I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do.

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans. If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else? What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism. Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc. I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy. I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do.

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans. If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else? What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism. Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc. I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

Outside the Church, I have no idea.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy. I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do.

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans. If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else? What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism. Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc. I see nothing wrong with the change.

That's exactly how I feel. Had I been offered a choice at the time I'd have probably still gone with Chrismation but with hindsight I think baptism would have been better.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy. I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do.

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans. If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else? What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism. Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc. I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

I don't know the details, but I'm sure the Church has a good reason. When atheists can become ordained ministers (I know at least one who just paid the admin fees), I wouldn't put much stock in any baptism performed by such a person. Likewise when they freely indulge and teach false doctrine to millions. I think a start from scratch approach works best. As I said, it did not happen that way for me, but of I had to do it over again I would have asked to be baptized.

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy. I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do.

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans. If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else? What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism. Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc. I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

Outside the Church, I have no idea.

The heretics can't baptism now?

What happened to all baptized being of the priesthood of Christ capable of preaching the Gospel and baptizing? Or is this some sort of new Donatist thing?

This issue, or scandal, or whatever it is is symptomatic of the whole "ekonomia" thing. I'm beginning to think the 'traditionalists' are correct. Baptize everyone.

Interesting. And what about those who of who came to Orthodoxy by chrismation only? Are you saying that we are not Orthodox Christians? I am not trying to open a can of worms here but can you see where this is going? Many, many converts to the Orthodox Christian faith will be considered outside of the Church.

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy. I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do.

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans. If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else? What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism. Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc. I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

I don't know the details, but I'm sure the Church has a good reason. When atheists can become ordained ministers (I know at least one who just paid the admin fees), I wouldn't put much stock in any baptism performed by such a person. Likewise when they freely indulge and teach false doctrine to millions. I think a start from scratch approach works best. As I said, it did not happen that way for me, but of I had to do it over again I would have asked to be baptized.

Must an Orthodox Christian confess before baptizing, to be free of any personal sins or heresy, for the baptism baptism to be valid? Did I say valid, how Latin (spit)? I meant 'for the baptism to stick, or actually happen'.

Interesting. And what about those who of who came to Orthodoxy by chrismation only? Are you saying that we are not Orthodox Christians? I am not trying to open a can of worms here but can you see where this is going? Many, many converts to the Orthodox Christian faith will be considered outside of the Church.

Saying that receiving everyone by baptism is preferable because economia has been applied too widely, too often, for no good reason, and is causing far more problems than it solves is not the same as saying that those who were received by chrismation are not Orthodox.

Interesting. And what about those who of who came to Orthodoxy by chrismation only? Are you saying that we are not Orthodox Christians? I am not trying to open a can of worms here but can you see where this is going? Many, many converts to the Orthodox Christian faith will be considered outside of the Church.

Saying that receiving everyone by baptism is preferable because economia has been applied too widely, too often, for no good reason, and is causing far more problems than it solves is not the same as saying that those who were received by chrismation are not Orthodox.

Thank you for the explanation, I was starting to become somewhat concerned. So what you are saying is that chrismation only is being applied too broadly and in inappropriate circumstances.

Interesting. And what about those who of who came to Orthodoxy by chrismation only? Are you saying that we are not Orthodox Christians? I am not trying to open a can of worms here but can you see where this is going? Many, many converts to the Orthodox Christian faith will be considered outside of the Church.

Saying that receiving everyone by baptism is preferable because economia has been applied too widely, too often, for no good reason, and is causing far more problems than it solves is not the same as saying that those who were received by chrismation are not Orthodox.

Thank you.

This entire brouhaha seems connected with our own patriarch's confusing position on Lutheran baptisms not so long ago.

I used to devour the canons supposedly arming myself well with all sorts of legalistic justifications for my personal beliefs. Later I just learned that most of these issues are not mine to fret, but my bishops worry.Likening this to the old Donatist problems just does not apply. Different time, different circumstances.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Likening this to the old Donatist problems just does not apply. Different time, different circumstances.

Are you just ignoring it, or can you justify that? I'm not talking about then, I'm talking about now. "There are no new sins."

In Orthodoxy "justify" means "to make righteous". Is that what you are asking or do you want a history lesson?

...

Are you being dense on purpose?

No, I am trying not to argue in a non-debate sub-forum. This is not the private area where personal attacks are allowed (not that I intend any).Want to debate this, start another topic elsewhere, please.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

This issue, or scandal, or whatever it is is symptomatic of the whole "ekonomia" thing. I'm beginning to think the 'traditionalists' are correct. Baptize everyone.

Except that it has never been tradition do so.

Problem facts.

Tradition is perhaps not a good guide here. Most of the Church's direction on this issue was set 1000 years before we had the Protestant confessions to consider. Schisms directly from the Orthodox Catholic Church, yes, those for sure and baptism was not applied in those cases.Never do I recall "Re"-baptism used as a term.IIRC, even RCs are to received in my jurisdiction by Confession of Faith alone (not even Chrismation), but I only see Chrismations today.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

But the "one baptism" phrase was originally written to forbid re-baptizing heretics, no?

Many groups practiced multiple baptism. You'd get baptised, screw up, get baptised again. The phrase was written to forbid Orthodox doing the same.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem says quite unequivocally that it does not refer to heretical baptisms:"We may not receive Baptism twice or thrice; else it might be said, Though I have failed once, I shall set it right a second time: whereas if you fail once, the thing cannot be set right; for there is "one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism" (Eph. 4:5): for only the heretics are rebaptized, because the former was no baptism." [Procatechesis 7 - Gifford's translation]

I'm a little confused by the position that says "heretical baptisms are not valid and reception by chrismation is an act of economia."

If that's the case, why do it? Ever? Is it that hard to be baptized?

You are confused because the statement is incorrect.

From time immemorial folks from communities professing heretical beliefs (Arians to name an infamous example and one which had a lot to do with Trinitarian theology), who technically are not necessarily heretics themselves, were not received by "rebaptism".

This has been going on forever and "traditionalists" are those looking to return to a time which never existed. They should be careful lest they flirt with restorationism.

Ansgar,Don't worry. The Paris Exarchate still receives Lutherans by chrismation, so you would not be concerned.

As for the Moscow Patriarchate, their decision seems inconsistent to me. Archbishop Longin of the MP has signed an agreement to recognise Lutheran baptisms in Germany. And the Lutherans here even allow gay/lesbian priests to live in Church appartments with their husbands/wives. And also, what about baptisms performed before the introduction of gay marriage?

Anyway, this whole thing seems so hypocritical to me. The canonical territory of the MP has the highest divorce rate in the world: over 70% of their flock divorce at least once in their lives. Is that not much more of a threat for the holiness of marriage than gay marriage, which will concern maybe 2% of all marriages?

Gay "marriage" does not merely threaten the "holiness" of marriage; it threatens the fundamental definition of marriage. Arguably divorce does as well, but the difference is that while relatively few enter a marriage with the intent to divorce (thus violating the permanence of marriage, which could be considered part of the definition) all who enter gay "marriage" enter it with the intent to violate the "union of a man and a woman" aspect of the definition. What that has to do with the validity of their baptisms is beyond me, however.

Gay "marriage" does not merely threaten the "holiness" of marriage; it threatens the fundamental definition of marriage.

Civil marriage also does, probably even more so. Luther called marriage "ein weltlich Ding" ("a worldly thing"). That is what the Church of Denmark has been doing since the Reformation. The marrige they perform is basically a blessing of a civil union, not a holy mystery, uniting a man and a woman through divine grace. It has nothing to do with the Orthodox mystery (sacrament) at all.

So whether they perform that rite on a man and a woman only, or also on same-sex couples, it has never been anything like Orthodox marriage for a few centuries. Probably the responsible persons in the MP should get some knowledge about Lutheran theology, before reacting the way they did.